A federal judge dealt a significant blow to Washington-based Northwest Multiple Listing Service (NWMLS), refusing to throw out an antitrust lawsuit brought by the real estate giant Compass.
In the 23-page order filed Thursday, U.S. District Judge Jamal N. Whitehead denied NWMLS’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, ruling that Compass at this early stage, had plausibly alleged that the listing service’s rules stifle competition, harm home sellers and potentially violate both federal and Washington state antitrust law.
“The question before the Court on this motion is whether the (lawsuit) states a plausible claim for relief, not whether Compass will ultimately prevail,” Whitehead wrote.
In a statement shared with RISMedia, NWMLS said it was “disappointed” in the decision, but pointed to other points in the ruling where Whitehead made it clear he was not ruling on the facts of the case, noting that at this stage of a lawsuit judges are required to take allegations as true and “draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.”
“Northwest MLS is confident in its pro-competitive and pro-consumer rules and systems and the transparent and comprehensive marketplace that its members have advanced over the past 40 years,” the statement read.
The dispute traces back to Compass’s 3-Phased Strategy; in the first phase, dubbed “Compass Private Exclusives,” listings are shared only among Compass agents, allowing sellers to gauge pricing and gather feedback without full public exposure.
Compass claimed that it sought to work with NWMLS on its restrictions regarding these types of properties (separate from Clear Cooperation, as NWMLS is not a Realtor®-controlled MLS), but alleged NWMLS went out of its way to bend rules or implement new policies meant to prevent these practices. The MLS even briefly cut off Compass’s IDX feed over alleged violations of its policies, and Compass filed the lawsuit in April of 2025.
NWMLS, for its part, has said its rules around private listings go back decades, and has denied targeting Compass while accusing the brokerage trying to “have it both ways”—the ability to access to all other broker’s listings while withholding its own.
Compass also sued Zillow over similar issues, though just this week the brokerage dropped its claims after the portal significantly relaxed its restrictions on what kind of listings would be allowed on Zillow platforms.
But it seems unlikely that Compass will back down from this litigation, now that Whitehead is allowing the lawsuit to move forward. Just yesterday, in an open letter distributed across the industry, Compass accused NWMLS (along with a handful of other big MLSs) of “actively working against the interests of the real estate professionals they claim to serve.”
Compass CEO Robert Reffkin also explicitly called out NWMLS on an earnings call with investors last month, referring to NWMLS CEO Justin Haag as “our dear friend” and promising to implement the company’s “Coming Soon” partnership with Redfin regardless of NWMLS’s rules.
Compass further promised in the letter it would “fight to change rules” that it claims limits “seller choice” around premarketing or listing properties on “private” networks.
In a statement shared with RISMedia, a National Association of Realtors® (NAR) spokesperson responded broadly to Compass’s pressure, defending the MLS system broadly, while also saying each MLS had the “flexibility” to set its own rules in regards to “pre-marketing efforts.”
“NAR will continue to be a pro-consumer association that champions MLS policies that advance fair housing, ensure equal opportunity to housing, and facilitate transactions that benefit home buyers and sellers. All agents who participate in MLSs agree to follow their MLSs policies regarding listing standards,” the spokesperson said.
The law
Judge Whitehead’s reasoning for dismissing the motion was pointed.
The court found that Compass had adequately alleged that NWMLS’s rules deprive homeowners of the freedom to choose how to market their own properties, suppress innovative competition and entrench traditional incumbent brokerages at the expense of new entrants. That, the judge found, is precisely the kind of harm federal antitrust law was designed to prevent.
NWMLS had argued, among other things, that Compass was simply trying to “free ride,” utilizing NWMLSs platform and other broker’s data without contributing its fair share.
NWMLS previously foreshadowed that it will countersue Compass, without specifying what its claims will be.
The judge acknowledged the “free-riding” argument had some force, but said resolving it required a trial, not a dismissal. “Whether NWMLS’s rules are a reasonable response to free-riding or a pretext for anticompetitive coordination,” he wrote, “is a question of fact.”
In its statement, NWMLS also pointed to a recent law passed in Washington focused on private listings and how brokers can market properties. The MLS said its rules are “entirely consistent” with that law, even as Compass has alleged violations of Washington consumer protection laws in its lawsuit.
“(The new law) requires broad marketing of residential properties to the general public and all real estate brokers,” the statement reads (emphasis original).
Whitehead was also not convinced by arguments that the antitrust injury Compass alleged was really just “harm to itself, not to competition.” Recent precedent cases—including one involving a listing startup that sued the National Association of Realtors® and big MLSs—support the argument that restrictions that prevent “innovative” business models could also harm consumers.
“(C)onduct that prevents new or innovative competitors from entering or competing in a market, leaving consumers with fewer choices and lower-quality products, is the kind of harm (federal antitrust law) is designed to address,” Whitehead wrote.
Editor’s note: this story was updated at 11:40 a.m. eastern time with comments from NAR and NWMLS.
